The sate of nature is the opposite of civilization. When there is no society, there is the state of nature. Therefore, political philosophers use this theory of existence as a way to review current society. While some fancy the state of nature, others despise it. The idea is that whatever changes have occurred since men left the original state of nature can only be attributed to society. Depending on whether these changes are viewed favorably or negatively, the philosopher will then argue for all, none, or some forms of society. Though the state of nature is commonly regarded as the starting point of mankind, some philosophers (like Hobbes) believe we can re-enter it at any moment.
Equality is a common theme among theories of humans in the state of nature. Although various theories present different types and degrees of equality, modern political thought focuses in on this issue . This illustrates a rise in the importance of the individual in thinking during the modern period, looking at human nature thorugh the examination of individual people rather than the group as a whole. This also illustrates a certain degree of secularization in thought, growing further from an idea of divine selection inherent in people and putting all people on an equal level at least in the state of nature. (At the same time, the idea of the equality of human beings has roots in Chirstianity, no? See also Locke - xmarquez Oct 3, 2006)
According to Hobbes
The State of Nature, as given by Hobbes, centers on the idea that men and women gravitate towards violence and anarchy to preserve their own ends. This tendency towards violence, according to Hobbes, is inherent in mankind's natural state. According to Hobbes, men and women naturally have selfish passions that make them desire power and control over others. Still others desire only to defend themselves. These natural passions cause each person to become highly skeptical of everyone around them, thus making them turn to violence, or "the sword", to protect their existence. This theory manifests itself in the various Game Theory excercises in class. Essentially, men and women look out for their best interests. Since every person is violently protecting their own self-interest, the result is that life in the state of nature is the state of war.
Hobbes views all men as being equal in a sense that they are all equally vulnerable. According to Hobbes, "the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit" as even the weakest of men has the ability to kill, the least intelligent can learn from experience, and any other possible inequality can easily be overcome to ultimately kill another person. Equality in Hobbes' state of nature, then leads to skepticism and fear among people since "two men [can] desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy," and must always look at others as the enemy in high-stakes interactions.
Hobbes' view on equality denies any higher level of equality among humans other than that they can kill each other. In this way, there is no higher degree in which every person is equal other than the ability to kill. This is a highly different view of equality than what most law is centered around today. For instance, it would seem odd to renounce slavery because blacks and whites have the same ability to kill. In this way, Hobbes' view on equity seems more primitive than the dominant view today.
Ultimately, this equality leads to diffidence (seeking safety). And from this quest for security proceeds war. Three principal causes of quarrel are 1) competition (man seeks to gain from war with the enemy), 2) diffidence (man seeks protection and safety) and 3) glory (man seeks to defend his reputation). Everyone ends up killing each other to protect their own well-being, leading to a life in the state of nature that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Those in the state of nature only decide upon cooperation when it is as equally beneficial to themselves as to the other person. Hobbes writes that mankind only leaves the State of Nature when the decision is made to "confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of mean, that may reduce all their wills...unto one will" and to "submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments, to his judgment."
Hobbesian Assumptions
Equalityof vulnerability and the ability to kill
“Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind […] the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself.” (p.79)
Self preservation is the dominant motivation in men
“From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends […] which is principally [our] own conservation, and sometimes [our] delectation only, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.” (p.79)
There is no universal rules of justice or morality that limit behavior
“To this war of every man, against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place.” (p.82) Hobbes claims that, in the state of nature, there are no greater rules that govern the actions of others. Even if there were, Hobbes claims that, with no society or sovereign, there is no way to enforce these rules, so they essentially don't exist. Such a claim is rather controversial, implying that they only reason an action is wrong is because society deems it so, and without that society, any action is acceptable. This would deny any sort of religious beliefs that assume the existence of laws of God even without a social contract.
All interactions are high-stakes
“[…] during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.” (p.81) In Hobbes' state of nature, all actions result in extreme consequences. When humans find each other in the state of nature, they view others as a threat to their existence, and thus must take major actions. As a result, almost all interactions result in the death of one member to protect themselves from another. This claim is viewed as skeptical for a few reasons. For one, it would seem difficult for any person who feels so threatened by other people that they only have high-stakes interactions to ever overcome this fear and leave the state of nature.
According to Locke
The state of nature in man is a state of perfect freedom that allows men to “order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man” This sentence implies first, that each person has an equal amount of power over every other person.Secondly, it suggests that the state of nature has an accordant “law of nature” which governs it and applies to every person. The Law of Nature centers on the idea that as mankind is equal in nature, "...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for another's uses..."(Chapter 2).
According to Locke, humans have equality under God. Locke writes, "...for men [are] all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure". Given, then, that God bestows equal facilities on men, all men work equally under the the law of nature, which, for Locke, is the law of reason. From the law of nature, one can also derive the idea of personal property in the state of nature, thus also leading Locke to believe in an equal ability to own and protect property. Locke also contends that each human has property in him or her self. No one has property over another.
Locke's ideas on equality depend on the existence of the very thing that makes equality seem more reasonable: the natural existance of reason and moral law, and to a greater extent, God. Without God, humans do not have the very basic equality Locke describes. While this idea is difficult to prove, Locke's explanation of equity does make sense. However, his explanation is not necessarily any more logically sound than Hobbes'.
Thus, being equal and independent, no one should logically harm anyone else. We all have similar capabilities and share in "one community of nature", and therefore there "cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses". As everyone tries to preserve himself, so should each do his best to preserve the rest of mankind. We have an obligation to “mutual love of men”, on which are built the “duties one another” and the “maximums of justice and charity.” Furthermore, we have a right to punish the transgressors of the law of nature to prevent its violation, as all other laws of men would be in vain if there were no way to execute this law and "preserve the innocent and restrain offenders."
Lockean Assumptions
Equality under God
“A also wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal […]unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” (p.48)
Preservation of others is (or should be) the dominant motivation
“law of nature to govern it […] teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker […] when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind.” (p.48)
Property exists even without society
Locke claims that property does not need society in order to exist. As long as a person uses their own labor to make a good from nature, they own that property according to Locke. This ownership is a natural right that cannot be taken away even wihtout a society in the state of nature. This is quite different from Hobbes where everyone is entitled to every thing.(Contrast with Hobbes/Rousseau? - xmarquez Oct 3, 2006)
Everyone has the right to punish [similar to Hobbes in this respect] (SeeLaw of Nature)
“all men may be restrained from invading others rights […] everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation” (p.48)
All interactions are not high-stakes
“the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men [a.k.a. Hobbes] have confounded, are far distant” (p.51)
One enters the state of war but does not live in it. Because judgments on punishments and reason can sometimes conflict, the state of nature can result in a state of war, yet not as violent and dangerous a state of war as Hobbes describes. Still, this will only happen in certain situations, and the state of nature is not constantly a state of war.
Why Mankind Leaves the State of Nature
1) One must be able to appeal to an impartial judge for transgressions.
2) Positive law, that states what belongs to who. For Locke, the law of nature is too vague to declare ownership.
3) The power to punish properly. The power to punish properly revolves around the idea of proportionality. When one man infringes upon another's rights, by the law of nature, the injured man may punish the other. However, the man who inflicts his punishment does so in a biased manner. He is partial to his own case and may inflict a punishment that does not fit the crime. Thus, Locke argues that man exits the State of Nature to find an impartial judge for cases such as these.
According to Rousseau
The state of nature for Rousseau is one of perfect equality and complete independence. He defines that there are two existing inequalities in modern society Natural and Moral inequalities. The first one refers to physical variations and the second meaning disparity in power (economic, political, etc.). In the state of nature, however, everyone is under the same diet and dangers. Everyone is therefore under the same physical constraints. This translates into comparable physical capabilities. Physical attributes in the state of nature are so primal that they allow men to be completely independent from one another. Since power derives from relationships of dependence, no one in the state of nature has more power than anyone else. So, the state of nature is a state of equality.
Men, Rousseau explains, live much like animals when they are in the state of nature. They have the natural drives of both self preservation and compassion. They care not only about personal survival but of survival of their kind. There is no morality or vice in nature. This is not to be interpreted in a Hobbesian sense of no morality, no justice, just viciousness. Contrarily, Rousseau believes that men, much like animals, are not purposely cruel but rather generally content in nature. If threatened, they will use violence, but otherwise they will just mind their own business.
Rousseauian Assumptions
Man is a completely independent animal therefore there are no Natural or Moral inequality
Man must “go naked, have no dwellings and lack the superfluities which we think so necessary” (p.12) this results in comparable physical abilities. Man has no “artificial faculties” and alone he manages to satisfy his hunger, slake his thirst, and find his bed, “and, with that, all his wants supplied” (p.10). This extreme self-sufficiency prevents the formation of dependence between men. With no dependency, there is no imbalance of power, and, therefore, no moral inequalities.
Self-preservation and compassion are equally potent drives
The “operations of the human soul” is modified by two “internal impulses.” “One of them deeply interesting us in our own welfare and preservation,” and the other “a natural repugnance at seeing any other sensible being, and particularly any of our own species, suffer pain or death” (p.8).
Free-will is the ultimate determinant of behavior
The free-will of man allows him to “deviate from the rule prescribed to it […] Hence that dissolute men run into excesses” (p.12).
There is no intrinsic morality, but there is also no natural animosity
“Man is born free” (SC p.1), free to act however he wishes. (This could use a more appropriate citation - xmarquez Oct 3, 2006)
Study Questions
How do Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau differ in their conceptions of equality?
(Add your own or revise this - xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
Table of Contents
THE STATE OF NATURE
The sate of nature is the opposite of civilization. When there is no society, there is the state of nature. Therefore, political philosophers use this theory of existence as a way to review current society. While some fancy the state of nature, others despise it. The idea is that whatever changes have occurred since men left the original state of nature can only be attributed to society. Depending on whether these changes are viewed favorably or negatively, the philosopher will then argue for all, none, or some forms of society. Though the state of nature is commonly regarded as the starting point of mankind, some philosophers (like Hobbes) believe we can re-enter it at any moment.Equality is a common theme among theories of humans in the state of nature. Although various theories present different types and degrees of equality, modern political thought focuses in on this issue . This illustrates a rise in the importance of the individual in thinking during the modern period, looking at human nature thorugh the examination of individual people rather than the group as a whole. This also illustrates a certain degree of secularization in thought, growing further from an idea of divine selection inherent in people and putting all people on an equal level at least in the state of nature. (At the same time, the idea of the equality of human beings has roots in Chirstianity, no? See also Locke -
According to Hobbes
The State of Nature, as given by Hobbes, centers on the idea that men and women gravitate towards violence and anarchy to preserve their own ends. This tendency towards violence, according to Hobbes, is inherent in mankind's natural state. According to Hobbes, men and women naturally have selfish passions that make them desire power and control over others. Still others desire only to defend themselves. These natural passions cause each person to become highly skeptical of everyone around them, thus making them turn to violence, or "the sword", to protect their existence. This theory manifests itself in the various Game Theory excercises in class. Essentially, men and women look out for their best interests. Since every person is violently protecting their own self-interest, the result is that life in the state of nature is the state of war.
Hobbes views all men as being equal in a sense that they are all equally vulnerable. According to Hobbes, "the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit" as even the weakest of men has the ability to kill, the least intelligent can learn from experience, and any other possible inequality can easily be overcome to ultimately kill another person. Equality in Hobbes' state of nature, then leads to skepticism and fear among people since "two men [can] desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy," and must always look at others as the enemy in high-stakes interactions.
Hobbes' view on equality denies any higher level of equality among humans other than that they can kill each other. In this way, there is no higher degree in which every person is equal other than the ability to kill. This is a highly different view of equality than what most law is centered around today. For instance, it would seem odd to renounce slavery because blacks and whites have the same ability to kill. In this way, Hobbes' view on equity seems more primitive than the dominant view today.
Ultimately, this equality leads to diffidence (seeking safety). And from this quest for security proceeds war. Three principal causes of quarrel are 1) competition (man seeks to gain from war with the enemy), 2) diffidence (man seeks protection and safety) and 3) glory (man seeks to defend his reputation). Everyone ends up killing each other to protect their own well-being, leading to a life in the state of nature that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Those in the state of nature only decide upon cooperation when it is as equally beneficial to themselves as to the other person. Hobbes writes that mankind only leaves the State of Nature when the decision is made to "confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of mean, that may reduce all their wills...unto one will" and to "submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments, to his judgment."
Hobbesian Assumptions
Equality of vulnerability and the ability to kill
“Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind […] the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself.” (p.79)
Self preservation is the dominant motivation in men
“From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends […] which is principally [our] own conservation, and sometimes [our] delectation only, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.” (p.79)
There is no universal rules of justice or morality that limit behavior
“To this war of every man, against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place.” (p.82) Hobbes claims that, in the state of nature, there are no greater rules that govern the actions of others. Even if there were, Hobbes claims that, with no society or sovereign, there is no way to enforce these rules, so they essentially don't exist. Such a claim is rather controversial, implying that they only reason an action is wrong is because society deems it so, and without that society, any action is acceptable. This would deny any sort of religious beliefs that assume the existence of laws of God even without a social contract.
All interactions are high-stakes
“[…] during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.” (p.81) In Hobbes' state of nature, all actions result in extreme consequences. When humans find each other in the state of nature, they view others as a threat to their existence, and thus must take major actions. As a result, almost all interactions result in the death of one member to protect themselves from another. This claim is viewed as skeptical for a few reasons. For one, it would seem difficult for any person who feels so threatened by other people that they only have high-stakes interactions to ever overcome this fear and leave the state of nature.
According to Locke
The state of nature in man is a state of perfect freedom that allows men to “order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man” This sentence implies first, that each person has an equal amount of power over every other person.Secondly, it suggests that the state of nature has an accordant “law of nature” which governs it and applies to every person. The Law of Nature centers on the idea that as mankind is equal in nature, "...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for another's uses..."(Chapter 2).
According to Locke, humans have equality under God. Locke writes, "...for men [are] all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure". Given, then, that God bestows equal facilities on men, all men work equally under the the law of nature, which, for Locke, is the law of reason. From the law of nature, one can also derive the idea of personal property in the state of nature, thus also leading Locke to believe in an equal ability to own and protect property. Locke also contends that each human has property in him or her self. No one has property over another.
Locke's ideas on equality depend on the existence of the very thing that makes equality seem more reasonable: the natural existance of reason and moral law, and to a greater extent, God. Without God, humans do not have the very basic equality Locke describes. While this idea is difficult to prove, Locke's explanation of equity does make sense. However, his explanation is not necessarily any more logically sound than Hobbes'.
Thus, being equal and independent, no one should logically harm anyone else. We all have similar capabilities and share in "one community of nature", and therefore there "cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses". As everyone tries to preserve himself, so should each do his best to preserve the rest of mankind. We have an obligation to “mutual love of men”, on which are built the “duties one another” and the “maximums of justice and charity.” Furthermore, we have a right to punish the transgressors of the law of nature to prevent its violation, as all other laws of men would be in vain if there were no way to execute this law and "preserve the innocent and restrain offenders."
Lockean Assumptions
Equality under God
“A also wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal […]unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” (p.48)
Preservation of others is (or should be) the dominant motivation
“law of nature to govern it […] teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker […] when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind.” (p.48)
Property exists even without society
Locke claims that property does not need society in order to exist. As long as a person uses their own labor to make a good from nature, they own that property according to Locke. This ownership is a natural right that cannot be taken away even wihtout a society in the state of nature. This is quite different from Hobbes where everyone is entitled to every thing.(Contrast with Hobbes/Rousseau? -
Everyone has the right to punish [similar to Hobbes in this respect] (See Law of Nature)
“all men may be restrained from invading others rights […] everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation” (p.48)
All interactions are not high-stakes
“the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men [a.k.a. Hobbes] have confounded, are far distant” (p.51)
One enters the state of war but does not live in it. Because judgments on punishments and reason can sometimes conflict, the state of nature can result in a state of war, yet not as violent and dangerous a state of war as Hobbes describes. Still, this will only happen in certain situations, and the state of nature is not constantly a state of war.
Why Mankind Leaves the State of Nature
1) One must be able to appeal to an impartial judge for transgressions.2) Positive law, that states what belongs to who. For Locke, the law of nature is too vague to declare ownership.
3) The power to punish properly. The power to punish properly revolves around the idea of proportionality. When one man infringes upon another's rights, by the law of nature, the injured man may punish the other. However, the man who inflicts his punishment does so in a biased manner. He is partial to his own case and may inflict a punishment that does not fit the crime. Thus, Locke argues that man exits the State of Nature to find an impartial judge for cases such as these.
According to Rousseau
The state of nature for Rousseau is one of perfect equality and complete independence. He defines that there are two existing inequalities in modern society Natural and Moral inequalities. The first one refers to physical variations and the second meaning disparity in power (economic, political, etc.). In the state of nature, however, everyone is under the same diet and dangers. Everyone is therefore under the same physical constraints. This translates into comparable physical capabilities. Physical attributes in the state of nature are so primal that they allow men to be completely independent from one another. Since power derives from relationships of dependence, no one in the state of nature has more power than anyone else. So, the state of nature is a state of equality.
Men, Rousseau explains, live much like animals when they are in the state of nature. They have the natural drives of both self preservation and compassion. They care not only about personal survival but of survival of their kind. There is no morality or vice in nature. This is not to be interpreted in a Hobbesian sense of no morality, no justice, just viciousness. Contrarily, Rousseau believes that men, much like animals, are not purposely cruel but rather generally content in nature. If threatened, they will use violence, but otherwise they will just mind their own business.
Rousseauian Assumptions
Man is a completely independent animal therefore there are no Natural or Moral inequality
Man must “go naked, have no dwellings and lack the superfluities which we think so necessary” (p.12) this results in comparable physical abilities. Man has no “artificial faculties” and alone he manages to satisfy his hunger, slake his thirst, and find his bed, “and, with that, all his wants supplied” (p.10). This extreme self-sufficiency prevents the formation of dependence between men. With no dependency, there is no imbalance of power, and, therefore, no moral inequalities.
Self-preservation and compassion are equally potent drives
The “operations of the human soul” is modified by two “internal impulses.” “One of them deeply interesting us in our own welfare and preservation,” and the other “a natural repugnance at seeing any other sensible being, and particularly any of our own species, suffer pain or death” (p.8).
Free-will is the ultimate determinant of behavior
The free-will of man allows him to “deviate from the rule prescribed to it […] Hence that dissolute men run into excesses” (p.12).
There is no intrinsic morality, but there is also no natural animosity
“Man is born free” (SC p.1), free to act however he wishes. (This could use a more appropriate citation -
Study Questions
- How do Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau differ in their conceptions of equality?
- (Add your own or revise this -
xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
>